If blood type A came before blood type O, it would tend to validate the theory of Creation rather than evolution. In Genesis 1:29, God commanded Adam and Eve to be vegans.

Welcome to the board radioron. I am not a genetics expert but it would seem to me that A could not have come first due to the fact it is a dominant gene. If the gene pool was all A and O appeared as a mutation it would immediately be extinguished by its dominant competition. Furthermore the origins of types may be too deeply buried in the past to have left evidence that can be scrutinized.

Welcome radioron. You've resurrected a topic that is 1 1/2 years old. I too was not on the message boards then either.

I also find the topic very fascinating and have enjoyed reading through the past posts on the subject. I too have often contemplated the implications of the vegan diets in early Genesis until the time of the great flood when God allowed humans to eat meat.

Isn't it also a wonder that it wasn't unusual for humans before the flood to live near 1,000 years (Genesis 5)? Contrast that with the following generations gradual shortening life spans (Genesis 11) despite the fact that the inhabitants diets included meat, unlike before the flood when the inhabitants were limited to a vegan diet and often lived 700-1,000 years?

I think the "water canopy" theory explaining the dramatic changes in life spans is a very credible scientific theory. The bible describes the 40 days of flooding unlike any other event in human history, describing "the windows of heaven" and "the fountains of the great deep" opening up to flood the entire earth. It's believed that "canopy"in the earth's atmosphere protected the inhabitants from harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun, thus explaining the incredibly long life spans as well as the capability to continue bearing children for hundreds of years. Once that "canopy" was gone, all humans were subject to much more ultraviolet radiation, thus explaining the eventual shortening of life over the following few generations.

Maybe the debate over existing blood types from the beginning of time is not so relevant in lieu of the "water canopy" theory.

ColeenISF-J, Non-Taster"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." James 1:26-27

Noah came off of the ark... Genesis 9:1-3- "Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything."

"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well." Psalm 139:13,14

If Adam and Eve did not have all three blood type alleles, then there must have been a mutation creating the O allele while the human race was still very small and before humans dispersed across the globe. Whether the origin of blood type O was in Adam and Eve at Creation or whether it arose as a mutational event that took place shortly before or after the Flood, it strongly supports that all humans today are descendants of two individuals or a small group of people that eventually populated the globe. Both scenarios are consistent with the biblical model of human origins.

I could agree that the human race originated in a small, exclusive population regardless of the Biblical accounts but a mutation that creates a recessive gene is simply going nowhere as it will be quickly eliminated by dominant genes.

As far as I can see in order for it to survive you would need a number of mutations simultaneously which would be indicative of a serious need for the mutation.

Type O can sustain itself in the modern world by its sheer volume of numbers and a lack of selective pressure. Under these conditions it remains a viable presence.

Abdul-Karim referenced Saitou and Yamamato to showcase that D'Adamo is wrong in that the O-type is oldest, and that all 4 types existed 4.5 million years ago, ergo the 40,000 yrs ago changes never happened. S&Y say that A existed first based on analysis of Gorillas, Orangutans, cows, mice, other animals. I didn't see any results from humans. They say that A->O->B.

Power says that there's no evidence for lectins, and that A's do best on omnivore diets. Her study was solely on allergies, not intolerances or effects on the body. Says D'Adamo didn't take into account A1, A2, Rh+ or Rh-. Both Power and Abdul-Karim say that there were no clinical studies, only online feedback used, and no references. I did find another, a book review of ER4YT that did say he was glad someone else was taking lectins seriously, but he didn't like the approach of the book (eg. unscientific).I am wondering if what they say is true, and how they arrived at it. It is my understanding that the popular books (Eat Right, Live Right, etc.) are "dumbed down" versions for the everyday-Joe. The hard science would be found in the medical journals. I also was reading the Scientific Basis on this site, and found many other doctors giving credence to lectins, and reactions to food.

I am of the opinion that these peer-reviewed journals are against naturo-pathy, and don't like quick advances and understandings of medicine without 100 yrs of testing before they believe it. This science is 130 yrs old though, so I don't know what's wrong with it. If you want to take into account Hippocrates and Ancient Egypt, then it's over 4000 yrs old. (eg. Food=medicine or poision)

There is strong evidence that the ABO system is 15 plus million years old, and that A and B predated O, but i do not think it effects the immune differences and how systems deal with foods and stuff. Most biological thinking posits A is the original blood type, then B and O is a spontaneous mutation to cope with early viruss that A's and B's did not handle so well. Why would a recessive gene with a null protein come before a dominant gene with an active protein. Plus O has anti A and anti B properties. Also, A has many specialized varieties that no other blood type has, evidence it has been around longer.

Another thing to consider is that early humans and primates did not eat much meat, perhaps some insects and eggs, which are probably fine for todays' A's and B's. I will pass on insects though! They ate mostly fruits, veggies, roots, and grainlike foods, nuts, seeds, etc.

A's and B's deal with older bacterial disease better in general and most primates are either A, B, or AB, with O not as common. Humans are the only primate with O being the most common blood type. To me this makes much more biological sense, but the GTD and BTD are not biology books, it is a wellness book. Truth is no one knows!!

Dr. D says himself he is not an expert in how or why blood types came into being, he speculated as to how he says. I find it interesting, but the blood type diet deals with what is observable and patterns he sees that come with blood types and genotypes.

The hows it came into being is anyone's guess. I am no expert either, i just have read stuff on the subject because i found it interesting and got semi obsessed with it

Who was first and why is actually totally irrelevant to all the facts we have about the ABO system currently. Human beings could have been transposed onto earth 150 years ago, with a false history placed at the same time. It wouldn't change the information we have now if it had happened; the diet recommendations would be identical because they are entirely based on modern studies, experiments, and observations.

The real fallacy is that the public doesn't under stand science rather at all. I even have a mediocre understanding of the majority. Even in this thread despite the irrefutable nature of some information provided, the questions and assertions continue. It isn't even really about what science there happens to be, so much as how loud and often people can continue to ask to instill doubt - that is until the peer pressure from common acceptance happens.

By the way the current oldest record was type O, but now is type A.

Also Type O people now are doing stupendous compared to many type A. Look at the ingredients of almost everything, lots of added oils. Lots of meat. The Paleo craze, atkins, low carb, repeated beneficial diet approaches for Type O. No one ever talks about the Mediterranean diet anymore but why would you since everyone eating wheat is fat now. Why not just exercise it off? Oh well the contemporary exercise hard and get rewarded direction all of our media etc has taken doesn't work for type A's... It isn't unusual to be born blood type O with a parent that is A or AB, despite the dominance factor. It could have to do with health perhaps?

I'm demanding myselve up from what criteria and point of view something begins to be understandable under "scientifique* (ly) * I observed merely *art-work*...even the so called *evidence-based-lineres* were obsolet todays ... ... time changes and we do change too;)....overlapping genotypes can't tell yet.... mine are a bit overwhelming sometimes..... so far we need to take care in not jumping into a-and presumptions as often the NT's do have tendencies... if not fragmental thoughts might be the culprit of erroning end-results.... but due to this famous word scientifique...all can happen...even the correctures... some years later .....

Right. It is an attractive foodstuff for humans though as it is both energy and nutrient dense.

Going by the dominant/recessive model you would have to conclude that recessives O and Non-secretor were original and the dominants A,B and secretor were later arrivals. There is not likely at this point if that can ever be determined.

Who was first and why is actually totally irrelevant to all the facts we have about the ABO system currently. Human beings could have been transposed onto earth 150 years ago, with a false history placed at the same time. It wouldn't change the information we have now if it had happened; the diet recommendations would be identical because they are entirely based on modern studies, experiments, and observations

It isn't unusual to be born blood type O with a parent that is A or AB, despite the dominance factor. It could have to do with health perhaps?

Or perhaps hanky-panky. According to author Jarad Diamond blood type inheritance was not taught in US schools because there were an embarassing number of children whose type did not match up with those of their supposed parents. Apparently the research of the day was shelved and not published so a "cause" here remains mysterious.

Perhaps A and B were around and a cataclysm or something happened, and traits that O's had enabled them to move forward and push humanity forward, it was chaotic and early humans walked and began to hunt meat, then once again, things enabled A's and B's to thrive more. A's could once again do well and farm, and B's could do their thing, like cruisin nomads.

Maybe at one point A's and B's were almost gone. It is a mystery because blood type A has many varieties, including A2 which is a transition point from A1 to O. All blood types have some variations though, which attests to the plasticity of genes though.

Also Type O people now are doing stupendous compared to many type A. Look at the ingredients of almost everything, lots of added oils. Lots of meat. The Paleo craze, atkins, low carb, repeated beneficial diet approaches for Type O.

I think this is a case of cultural momentum more than any thing else. Until very recently animals played a much more visible and valuable role in everyday human life and the eating patters from that era seem to have carried over to the present day. There is no particular reason for this continuation as even the average person gets much more protein in their diet than they actually need. Change can happen but even the best thought out plan will only yield painfully slow results.